Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
hissingsid

Shotgun seized

Recommended Posts

Sacked on a Bank Holiday Monday? Most un-Govt like...?:o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Sacked on a Bank Holiday Monday? Most un-Govt like...?:o

I have to say it’s unlikely that anyone in government would have got out of bed to sack anyone on bank holiday Monday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 6:03 PM, Gizo said:

Poor little souls had to carry heavy equipment a long way too. Pray for schooey 

More has now come to light this morning and it does seem a bit odd as the story seems to have changed considerably. 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=50466

Police said he was lawfully on the land and has lawfully held firearms but their inquiries are looking into whether he was shooting in an appropriate place.

So someone seems to have been walking on someone else’s private property and heard gunshots nearby. A man has now been spoken to. I suppose that’s what you get for trespassing on someone’s land whilst they’re out shooting. You hear shots being fired. It’s hard to see why the intervention of an armed police unit and a drone were required if the end result was simply a good talking to by the plod for shooting on your own land. 

Edited by MrPB
Spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MrPB said:

More has now come to light this morning and it does seem a bit odd as the story seems to have changed considerably. 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=50466

Police said he was lawfully on the land and has lawfully held firearms but their inquiries are looking into whether he was shooting in an appropriate place.

So someone seems to have been walking on someone else’s private property and heard gunshots nearby. A man has now been spoken to. I suppose that’s what you get for trespassing on someone’s land whilst they’re out shooting. You hear shots being fired. It’s hard to see why the intervention of an armed police unit and a drone were required if the end result was simply a good talking to by the plod for shooting on your own land. 

 

 

Deja vu ... ;)

Quote

In all likelihood (here on IoM) the situation they discover will be far removed from the worst case scenario - maybe some chap potting bunnies with a .22 on private land and a (inadvertent trespasser) walker nearby is alarmed

 

World is turning into a shower of snowflakes. Unfortunately the Police can't really take any chances, they would surely be hammered if they had failed to investigate properly and someone got hurt. Use of drone to speed up the search is a worthwhile efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

The world is turning into a shower of snowflakes. Unfortunately the Police can't really take any chances, they would surely be hammered if they had failed to investigate properly and someone got hurt. Use of drone to speed up the search is a worthwhile efficiency.

So pretty much as I said at the time. Some tit walking where they weren’t even supposed to be on someone else’s property heard a man shooting some rabbits on his own land with his own gun but instead of realizing that they were in the country where shooting goes on all the time they decided to call in a swat team as they’re a complete snowflake tit who was “nearly” shot. Or perhaps they thought it was a local branch of Al Qaida on a secret training exercise they stumbled into. Either way sounds like overkill as the chances that it was an escaped lunatic on a murder rampage were pretty low given the rural setting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone agrees that the caller was at fault here rather than the police response? As others have said, I don’t really see what else they could’ve done in the circumstances, given the ‘snowflake’ was probably screaming over the phone that he’d (she’d?) been ‘shot at’. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, manxst said:

So everyone agrees that the caller was at fault here rather than the police response? As others have said, I don’t really see what else they could’ve done in the circumstances, given the ‘snowflake’ was probably screaming over the phone that he’d (she’d?) been ‘shot at’. 

Yes but pretty much it must have been highly probable that there was no escaped lunatic running round taking pot shots at people even if some snowflake was letting their imagination run riot on the phone so why the full armed response team dragging heavy gear over land? Reading that article it looks like the “shooter” has been done for nothing and even the rifle has been handed back as it was licensed. So pretty much it looks like a man with a fully licensed gun was reported for shooting on his own land by a trespasser who shouldn’t have been on his land and who shat their pants when they heard a fairly normal countryside shooting sound on land they shouldn’t have been on. Some people should stick to walking through shopping precincts they are familiar with. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just remind ourselves of the criteria for deployment of AFO's. From APP Armed Policing, published by the College of Policing. 

The deployment of AFOs should only be authorised in the following circumstances:

  • where the officer authorising the deployment has reason to suppose that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:
    • is in possession of, or has immediate access to, a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, or
    • is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered to be appropriate, or
  • as an operational contingency in a specific operation (based on the threat assessment), or
  • for the destruction of animals which are dangerous or are suffering unnecessarily.

Use of the words ‘reason to suppose’ sets the level of knowledge required (about the existence of a threat justifying the deployment of AFOs) at a far lower level than that which would actually justify the use of firearms.

So, working with limited intelligence, a decision for deployment has to be taken. Within that intel, is likely to be information as to who shoots on that land, and what weaponry they will have access to.  Do I send; 

i) a neighbourhood patrol officer, with standard body armour, CS incapacitant, a baton and at a push, a taser, with limited or no knowledge of firearms and the tactical considerations around incidents which may involve such a threat, or. 

ii) a properly trained and equipped officer, who is operating under a recognised command structure and a comprehensive briefing, with a tactical plan developed to minimise risk to the public and maximise the safety of themselves and unarmed colleagues. And who is also equipped with a f*cking big rucksack full of advanced medical equipment so if anyone gets hurt, or has been hurt, they can immediately administer assistance. 

The days of option i) being the default are well and truly behind us. Lets remember that this deployment of police is an 'At Work' occurrence, and hence falls under the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Option i) would be the equivalent of sending a firefighter into a blaze in a T shirt and jeans and without a respirator, or someone up to fix a roof without proper fall restraint equipment. 

Sometimes, in a fast moving spontaneous incident, police officers have to place themselves in harms way. Its what they do. But when there is time to plan, the situation invariably turns out a darn sight safer. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but lets not criticise the commander that had to make a decision with limited information. They sent the right people to do the job. Very few armed deployments result in guns coming out of the holster, or even the car! In this case, the matter was investigated, everyone was kept safe, and the job is done. 

Hope that helps.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Hope that helps.

It does thanks, I can see myself wasting an awful lot of police time moving forward now I know where the bar is reporting to the police all the times someone “nearly” has an accident when I’m driving, or when I “nearly” get robbed (ie, leave my phone or wallet somewhere), or when I’m happily trespassing somewhere and I feel a bit scared by the normal country noises of normal country people doing things they have permits to do. I do feel sorry for the police having to deal with such hopeless dicks and having to take their idiotic take on the significance of things seriously. But then now we have social media so they have to tweet all this stuff that instantly makes them look a bit daft for taking a member of publics paranoia at face value. It was very unlikely at outset to be an armed siege in a farm in Kirk Michael wasn’t it? 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

It does thanks, I can see myself wasting an awful lot of police time moving forward now I know where the bar is reporting to the police all the times someone “nearly” has an accident when I’m driving, or when I “nearly” get robbed (ie, leave my phone or wallet somewhere), or when I’m happily trespassing somewhere and I feel a bit scared by the normal country noises of normal country people doing things they have permits to do. I do feel sorry for the police having to deal with such hopeless dicks and having to take their idiotic take on the significance of things seriously. But then now we have social media so they have to tweet all this stuff that instantly makes them look a bit daft for taking a member of publics paranoia at face value. It was very unlikely at outset to be an armed siege in a farm in Kirk Michael wasn’t it? 

Don’t really see the need myself to tweet about this sort of thing unless it’s impacting on members of the public who may be a little perturbed to be seeing armed police on the Island. In the middle of nowhere as this incident seems to be, I don’t get the point, unless it’s the cops shouting about their capabilities for some reason? BUT I still feel that someone reporting themselves to be nearly hit by bullets is somewhat different from the examples of ‘nearly’ being involved in an RTC etc, although I appreciate it may well have been a little tongue in cheek....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

It does thanks, I can see myself wasting an awful lot of police time moving forward now I know where the bar is reporting to the police all the times someone “nearly” has an accident when I’m driving, or when I “nearly” get robbed (ie, leave my phone or wallet somewhere), or when I’m happily trespassing somewhere and I feel a bit scared by the normal country noises of normal country people doing things they have permits to do. I do feel sorry for the police having to deal with such hopeless dicks and having to take their idiotic take on the significance of things seriously. But then now we have social media so they have to tweet all this stuff that instantly makes them look a bit daft for taking a member of publics paranoia at face value. It was very unlikely at outset to be an armed siege in a farm in Kirk Michael wasn’t it? 

- Who knows? They went with MOE kit by the looks of the photo, so perhaps there was something along those lines further colouring the intelligence picture. We don't know - and we don't need to know. 

You are being a little disingenuous with your 'nearly' comments. I'm sure you can see that calls from the public involving a firearm, even legally held, can rapidly develop. (Michael Ryan, Derrick Bird). I'd rather it was called in and the cops went and had a look each and every time, properly equipped to proportionately deal with it, rather than it escalate into something that would put the Island well and truly on the map for absolutely the wrong reasons. 

But that just might be me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, manxst said:

Don’t really see the need myself to tweet about this sort of thing unless it’s impacting on members of the public who may be a little perturbed to be seeing armed police on the Island. In the middle of nowhere as this incident seems to be, I don’t get the point, unless it’s the cops shouting about their capabilities for some reason? BUT I still feel that someone reporting themselves to be nearly hit by bullets is somewhat different from the examples of ‘nearly’ being involved in an RTC etc, although I appreciate it may well have been a little tongue in cheek....

I wouldn't disagree. In my time we tended to go quietly about our business with these sort of things - that did happen. That said, even when it did happen big style (Douglas Head incident) the press handling wasn't our finest hour. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...